Page 87 - DLIS103_LIBRARY_CLASSIFICATION_AND_CATALOGUING_THEORY

Library Classification and Cataloguing Theory

Notes classification. According to their point of view a logical structure of cross references within the
subject catalogue is essential to its effectiveness, so that at whatever point a user enters it, he will
be led to all of the entries relevant to his goal. It is not surprising that most of the group referred
to, including Bradfrd, Vikery, H.E. Bliss, and S. R. Ranganathan, to mention but a few, prefer the
classified catalogue as an economical approach, since references are not scattered so widely within
the framework of a classification scheme as they are in an artificial alphabetic arrangement. They
insist upon the need for logical integrity in the subject catalogue, since they conceive that its
function is to identify all of the references within the system which are related to the topic under
investigation.
Opponents minimize this need and adopt a more pragmatic approach. Their attitude is perhaps
best expressed by Jerrold Orne, who denies the need to coordinate every related subject heading
with cross references, and asserts that subject cataloguing problems stem, in large measure, from
failure to distinguish between indexing, as he calls it, and classifying. If the function of the subject
catalogue is to facilitate the identification of selected items on some specific subject, its reference
structure should be no more complex than necessary for the purpose. This is not a new point of
view by any means, for W. W. Bishop.
Implicit in both arguments is concern for the user of catalogues, for both parties seek to provide a
subject approach to library materials which will have the greatest utility. The habits of catalogue
users ought, then, to furnish definitive evidence to eliminate the disagreement. Unfortunately,
our catalogues have long been constructed upon untested assumptions as to how they are employed.
It is only within recent years that attempts have been made to describe the habits of catalogue
users, and what evidence is available seems too limited to settle the dispute with any finality. Such
evidence as is available tends to support the pragmatists, indicating that most people utilize a
subject catalogue either as a guide to shelf location or as an aid to the selection of a few good
references. There is no evidence to suggest that there is any significant use of the subject catalogue
to locate all of the material on a particular subject which the library may own.
As a matter of fact, there are serious limitations upon the ability of the subject catalogue to do this.
Obvious omissions include discussions in non-monographic publications which are not analyzed
in the catalogue, and shorter treatments which may be incidental to a monographic discussion of
another topic. But there are others as well. Jennette Hitchcock has enumerated over ninety groups
of material, of four general types, for which subject entries are not ordinarily found in typical
subject catalogues.
Until catalogue function is defined with some precision, it is not possible to propose final answers
to questions either of theory or of method, and answers which are suggested must be considered
tentative and subject to change. There are hopeful signs, however. Modern discussions of the
subject catalogue show increasing awareness of the inability of the subject catalogue to exhibit a
logical and wholly consistent structure, and at the same time be receptive promptly to such new
terms and new references as may be required to direct users to the materials they want. (Atleast
these features cannot be achieved if subject cataloguing is to be kept up to date and if its costs are
to be held within reasonable limits.) As Alex Ladenson points out, we must decide whether the
catalogue is to be an alphabetical quick-reference-finding tool, a scholarly and exhaustive
bibliography, or a logical and systematic arrangement of the fields of knowledge. Insofar as a
trend can be discerned, it appears that the pragmatic approach is in the ascendant. There are
suggestions, more in the air than on paper, that subject catalogs are destined to be freed from their
logical framework and developed along more utilitarian lines in the future. And the substance of
the discussions at the institute on subject analysis held at Columbia University in the summer of
1952 suggests that there is wide recognition of the urgent need to define objectives and principles
in the immediate future.

82 LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY